I don't care if it's done to animals. All this stuff may be a legitimate part of veterinary medicine. But human person find an essential meaning in natural sexual relations--- and I say "essential" because if the meaning isn't there, it's not just absent, it's positively wrong.
This whole set-up demeans the child from the first moment of his existence, making him not a gift of personal love, but an experiment and a lab product.
Furthermore, human children, as persons, derive their psychological security, their identity and their providence, in large part, from their fathers. To bring children into this world fatherless by design is unjust: it deprives them of their patrimony, which is their birthright.
Some children are fatherless by chance. N child should be fatherless by choice.
I find your opinion to be quite sad and unfortunate. I won’t argue that artificial reproduction methods aren’t ever used unethically, but there are plenty of loving, married couples who seek this treatment because they are infertile through no fault of their own. To suggest that their children were brought into this world any less loved because the parents didn’t have sex in the process is bizarre.
Sorry, Ms.Don, but I have to disagree.
There are legitimate reasons why women resort to help in conceiving and legitimate reasons why some are older when they want to have a baby.
You are generalizing. There is a possibility for abuse in everything. Rape can result in ‘natural’ childbirth but that doesn’t make it desirable.
I’m glad there is help for women who want to conceive past 40.
This example is way beyond the norm and proves nothing.